1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44034

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

CLIFFORD DANIEL SINGER ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 772

Filed: November 9, 2016
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and executing previously suspended sentence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen , Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson
, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Flemin g , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Clifford Daniel Singer was found guilty of burglary . I.C. § 18

- 1401 . The district court
sentenced Singer to a unified term of three years, with a minimum period of confinement of one
and one

- half years
, but suspended the sentence and pla ced Singer on probation. Subsequently, Singer admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probati on and ordered execution of the original sentence

. Singer appeals, contending
that the district court abused its d iscretion in revoking probation

. It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and
conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19

- 2603, 20

- 222; State v. Beckett , 1222

Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams , 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772 P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass , 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 ( Ct. App. 1988). In determining whether to revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. Upton , 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1 995); Beckett , 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; Hass , 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the
court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett , 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks , 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo , 150 Idaho 1 58, 162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett , 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocat ion, the focus of the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. Morgan , 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the
record before the trial cou rt relevant to the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id

. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revok ing probation or in ordering execution of Singer ’s sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Singer ’s previously suspended sentence is affir med.